This document is available in three
formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and
WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need
Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the
Antitrust Documents Group.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CMET, INC.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Criminal No: 06-075

Filed: 03/20/06

Violation: 18 U.S.C. § 371

INFORMATION

The United States of America, acting through its attorneys, charges:

I.

DEFENDANTS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS

1. CMET, Inc. ("Defendant") is a professional corporation organized and existing under
the laws of Japan. CMET is a subsidiary of a Japanese company formerly known as Teijin
Seiki, Co., Ltd. ("TS"). TS was acquired by a Japanese holding company, Nabtesco
Corporation, in 2003 and CMET is currently a business unit of Nabtesco.

2. A company and certain of its employees, not made defendants in this Information,
participated as co-conspirators in the offense charged in this Information and performed
acts and made statements in furtherance of it.

3. Whenever in this Information reference is made to any act, deed, or transaction of
any corporation, the allegation means that the corporation engaged in the act, deed, or
transaction by or through its officers, directors, employees, agents or other representatives
while they were actively engaged in the management, direction, control, or transaction of
business or affairs.

II.

BACKGROUND OF THE OFFENSE

4. Rapid prototyping (also known as solid imaging) is a field embodying the
use of computers and computer automated equipment to rapidly produce three-dimensional
prototypes, models, and even low-volume production quantities of physical objects that
traditionally have been produced by machining and other methods. Rapid prototyping is a
process by which a machine transforms a computer design for a mechanical or other part
into a three-dimensional prototype or model. Rapid prototyping is significantly faster and
less expensive than traditional methods of creating a prototype, such as machining, milling
or grinding.

5. During the period covered by this Information, the Defendant and its co-conspirators
were manufacturers of Industrial Rapid Prototyping ("IRP") systems and related materials
used in IRP systems. The Defendant was engaged in the sale of IRP systems in Asia and
its co-conspirators were engaged in the sale of IRP systems in the United States and
elsewhere.

6. On or about June 6, 2001 the United States filed a complaint, pursuant to Section 15
of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 25, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia to enjoin an acquisition, because the acquisition would reduce the
number of competitors in the United States IRP market from three to two. After the suit
was filed the United States and the civil defendants reached an agreement to settle the
case which provided that they would license their IRP technology to a foreign competitor,
who would enter the United States IRP market to preserve competition.

7. On or about August 16, 2001, the United States filed a proposed Final Judgment
with the Court, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16, the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
("APPA") outlining the terms of the settlement with the civil defendants. On or about the
same date the Court entered a stipulated order in which the civil defendants agreed to be
bound by the terms of the proposed Final Judgment. The defendant received a copy of the
proposed Final Judgment and had actual notice of its terms and conditions. After the
requirements of the APPA were met the Court entered the Final Judgment on April 17,
2002.

III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE

8. From at least as early as June 2001 and continuing through at least May 2002, the
exact dates being unknown to the United States, the Defendant and co-conspirators entered
into and engaged in a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, in violation
of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, by endeavoring to corruptly influence, obstruct,
or impede the due administration of justice, a violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1503.

9. During the relevant period, for purposes of forming and carrying out the charged
conspiracy, the Defendant and co-conspirators did the following things, among others:

(a) sought to conceal from the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") the full
extent and nature of the contemplated business relationship between the Defendant and co-conspirators and the Defendant's principal motivation for bidding on the technology license
("TLA") being offered under the terms of the proposed Final Judgment filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia;

(b) procured the Defendant's submission of a bid for the TLA based on covert
understandings between the Defendant and co-conspirators concerning future business
dealings and the settlement of a patent dispute which, if known to the DOJ, could have
disqualified Defendant's TLA bid;

(c) altered the translations of documents which the Defendant submitted to DOJ in
connection with its application to acquire the TLA; and

(d) made misrepresentations, in writing and orally in meetings with representatives of
the DOJ, concerning the Defendant's intent to vigorously compete in the United States if
granted the TLA.

IV.

TRADE AND COMMERCE

10. The business activities of the Defendant and its co-conspirators that are the subject
of this Information were within the flow of, and substantially affected interstate and foreign
commerce.

V.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. The offense charged in this Information was carried out in the District of Columbia
within five years preceding the filing of this Information.